Applicant s Handbook, Volume II (including Appendices A through F`) is Incorporated by Reference in Rule , F.A.C.

REFERENCES AND DESIGN AIDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICANT S HANDBOOK VOLUME II FOR USE WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS OF THE NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Applicant s Handbook, Volume II (including Appendices A through F`) is Incorporated by Reference in Rule 62-330.010, F.A.C. These References and Design Aids are not incorporated by reference in Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., and therefore do not constitute rules of the Agencies. They are intended solely to provide applicants with useful tools, example calculations, and design suggestions that may assist in the design of a project FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT March 1, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I References... 1 Part II Methodologies and Design Examples... 1 DA-II.1.0 Methodology and Design Examples for Retention Systems... 1 DA-II.1.1 Infiltration Processes... 1 DA-II.1.2 Water Management District Sponsored Research on Retention Systems... 1 DA-II.1.3 Accepted Methodologies and Design Procedures for Retention Basin Recovery... 3 DA-II.1.4 Recommended Field and Laboratory Tests for Aquifer Characterization... 11 DA-II.1.5 Design Example for Retention Basin Recovery... 22 DA-II.2.0 Methodology and Design Example for Wet Detention Systems... 1 DA-II.2.1 Calculating Permanent Pool Volumes... 1 DA-II.2.2 Sizing the Drawdown Structure... 1 DA-II.2.3 Mean Depth of the Pond... 6 DA-II.2.4 Design Example... 6 DA-II.3.0 Methodology and Design Examples for Stormwater Reuse Systems... 1 DA-II.3.1 Overview... 1 DA-II.3.2 Equivalent Impervious Area... 1 DA-II.3.3 Reuse Volume... 2 DA-II.3.4 Irrigation Withdrawal... 3 DA-II.3.5 Reuse Rate... 4 DA-II.3.6 Rate-Efficiency-Volume (REV) Curves... 4 DA-II.3.7 Design Examples for Stormwater Reuse Systems... 7 DA-II.4.0 Methodology and Design Example for Vegetated Natural Buffer Systems... 1 DA-II.4.1 Design Methodology for Calculating Buffer Width Based on Overland Flow... 1 DA-II.4.2 Design Example for Overland Flow Methodology... 2 DA-II.5.0 Guidance for Stormwater Management System Retrofit Activities... 1 DA - i

Part I References The following references are provided for those who wish to obtain additional information about the effective design, construction, operation, and maintenance of stormwater treatment systems. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (American Society for Testing Material (ASTM D)-1586) or auger borings (ASTM D 1452) (URL), referenced in section DA-II.1.4.1of this Design Aid Manual. Appendix C of the St. Johns River Water Management District Publication SJ93-SP10 available at (URL), referenced in sections DA-II.1.2 and DA-II.1.4.1 of this Design Aid Manual. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Engineering Handbook (NEH) has been revised over the past several years, and is still undergoing periodic revisions to its numerous Parts and Chapters. The entire NEH is currently available on line at: http://www.mi.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/engineering/neh.html. The hydrology section of the NEH is now available under Part 630 Hydrology, which consists of twenty-two (22) Chapters. These 22 Chapters are available on line at: http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewerfs.aspx?id=2572. As a point of information, Chapter 16 Hydrographs (dated March, 2007) is available via this same URL. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Drainage Manual has also been revised over the past several years, and is still undergoing periodic revisions to its various Handbooks contained within the Drainage Manual. These updated publications are currently available on line at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/dr/manualsandhandbooks.shtm. The Rational Method (for generating peak flow rates only) and the Modified Rational Method (for generating hydrographs) can be found in sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 of the February 2012 Drainage Handbook Hydrology, available at the above referenced URL. The Laws and Rules of regulated professions in Florida can be accessed at the following web addresses: Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_index&title_request=xxx II#TitleXXXII Rules (Florida Administrative Code): https://www.flrules.org/default.asp Soil Surveys and Official Soil Series Descriptions are available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey which is accessible at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/homepage.htmhttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/docs/no npoint/may04stsweepguidance.pdf DA Part I - 1

Part II Methodologies and Design Examples The methodologies in this Part II VI are intended to aid applicants in designing stormwater management systems to meet the design and performance criteria in Parts II and IV of Applicant s Handbook Volume II for NWFWMD. These methodologies are by no means the only acceptable method for designing stormwater management systems. Applicants proposing to use alternative methodologies are encouraged to consult with agency staff in a pre-application conference. DA-II.1.0 Methodology and Design Examples for Retention Systems The most common type of retention system consists of man-made or natural depression areas where the basin bottom is graded as flat as possible and turf is established to promote infiltration and stabilize basin side slopes. Soil permeability and water table conditions must be such that the retention system can percolate the desired runoff volume within a specified time following a storm event. DA-II.1.1 Infiltration Processes When runoff enters the retention basin, standing water in the basin begins to infiltrate. Water in the retention basin exits the basin in two distinct stages, either vertically (Stage One) through the basin bottom (unsaturated flow) or laterally (Stage Two) through the side slopes (saturated flow). One flow direction or the other will predominate depending on the height of the water table in relation to the bottom of the basin. The following paragraph briefly describes the two stages of infiltration and subsequent subsections present accepted methodologies for calculating infiltration rates and recovery times for unsaturated vertical (Stage One) and saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow. Initially, the subsurface conditions are assumed to be the seasonal high ground water table (SHGWT) below the basin bottom, and the soil above the SHGWT is unsaturated. When the water begins to infiltrate, it is driven downward in unsaturated flow by the combined forces of gravity and capillary action. The water penetrates deeper and deeper into the ground and fills the voids in the soil. Once the unsaturated soil below the basin becomes saturated, the water table "mounds" beneath the basin (Figure 1-1). At this time, saturation below the basin prevents further vertical movement and water exiting the basin begins to flow laterally. For successful design of retention basins, both the unsaturated and saturated infiltration must be accounted for and incorporated into the analysis. DA-II.1.2 Water Management District Sponsored Research on Retention Systems In the early 1990 s, the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) conducted full-scale hydrologic monitoring of retention basins in order to improve the design parameters and operational effectiveness of retention systems. This field data was used to evaluate and to recommend hydrogeologic characterization techniques and design methodologies for computing the time of percolation of impounded stormwater runoff. Although all of the retention basins selected for instrumentation were located within the Indian River Lagoon Basin of the SJRWMD where soil infiltration potential is somewhat limited, the results of the study and the design recommendations have state-wide applicability for similar areas where water table and soil conditions limit percolation. Copies of the report may be obtained from the Agency DA-II.1-1

Figure 1-1 Groundwater Mounding Beneath a Retention System. DA-II.1-2

(request District Special Publication SJ93-SP10). The document also is available online at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/erp/rules/guide.htm. The study included design recommendations on field and laboratory methods of aquifer characterization and methodologies for computing recovery time. Acceptable methodologies for calculating retention basin recovery are presented in section 1.3 of this Design Aid and recommended field and laboratory aquifer characterization testing methods are presented in section 1.4 of this Design Aid. These methodologies are based, in part, on the results in Special Publication SJ93-SP10. DA-II.1.3 DA-II.1.3.1 Accepted Methodologies and Design Procedures for Retention Basin Recovery Accepted Methodologies Acceptable methodologies for calculating retention basin recovery are presented below in Table 1-1. Vertical unsaturated flow methodologies are described in more detail in section 1.3.3 below and lateral saturated flow methodologies are presented in section 1.3.4 below. Table 1-1. Accepted Methodologies for Retention Basin Recovery Vertical Unsaturated Flow Green and Ampt Equation Hantush Equation Horton Equation Darcy Equation Holton Equation Lateral Saturated Flow PONDS PONDFLOW Modified MODRET Several of these methodologies are available commercially in computer programs. The agency can neither endorse any program nor certify program results. If applicants wish to calculate retention basin recovery by hand, acceptable methodologies for vertical unsaturated and lateral saturated flow are described in sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.5, of this Design Aid, respectively. A design example for each flow condition is presented below in section 1.5 of this Design Aid. DA-II.1.3.2 Design Procedures It is recommended that, unless the normal seasonal high water table is over 6 inches below the basin bottom, unsaturated flow prior to saturated lateral mounding be conservatively ignored in recovery analysis. In other words, there should be no credit for soil storage immediately beneath the basin if the seasonal high water table is within 6 inches of the basin bottom. This is not an unrealistic assumption since the height of capillary fringe in fine sand is on the order of 6 inches and a partially mounded water table condition may be remnant from a previous storm event, especially during the wet season. DA-II.1-3

It is also recommended that the filling of the pond with the treatment volume be simulated as a "slug" loading (i.e., treatment volume fills the pond within an hour). DA-II.1.3.3 Accepted Methodology for Estimating Vertical Unsaturated Flow Vertical unsaturated flow consists of primarily downward movement of water stored in the basin into an unsaturated portion of the soil profile existing beneath the basin. Vertical unsaturated flow only applies when the groundwater table or mound is below the retention basin bottom. Acceptable methodologies for calculating unsaturated vertical infiltration are included in Table 1-1. Each of the methodologies, however, is based on design assumptions that may not always be appropriate for a particular system design. Accordingly, the methodology or equations must be consistent with generally accepted engineering or scientific principles for the proposed design. In general the Green and Ampt equation is the most appropriate for conditions that typically occur in retention basin design. The MODRET computer program to estimates recovery in retention basins during unsaturated vertical flow. This methodology, which can easily be solved by hand, utilizes the modified Green and Ampt infiltration equation: I d = K vu FS (1-1) where: I d = Design infiltration rate K vu = Unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity FS = Factor of safety (recommend FS = 2.0) The time to saturate (t sat) the soil mass below the basin is: t = f hb sat I d (1-2) where: t sat = Time to saturate soil below the basin h b = Height of basin bottom above the groundwater table f = Fillable porosity (generally 0.2 to 0.3) See Figure 1-2 for a schematic of the retention basin with the appropriate design parameters illustrated for vertical unsaturated flow conditions. The total volume of water required to saturate the soil below the basin bottom (V u) can be calculated as follows: V u = A b h b f (1-3) where: A b = Area of basin bottom DA-II.1-4

Figure 1-2 Design Parameters for Analysis of Stage One (Vertical) Flow. DA-II.1-5

Likewise, the height of water required to saturate the soil below the basin bottom (h u) can be calculated using: h u = f h b (1-4) Recovery of the treatment storage will occur entirely under vertical unsaturated flow conditions when: (a) (b) Treatment volume V u ; or Height of the treatment volume (h v) in the basin h u If recovery of the treatment storage occurs entirely under vertical unsaturated conditions, analysis of the system for saturated lateral flow conditions will not be necessary. This simplified approach is conservative because it does not consider the horizontal movement of water from the ground water mound that forms during this stage. In cases where the horizontal permeability is great, a more accurate estimate of the total vertical unsaturated flow can be obtained by using the Hantush equation. However, horizontal permeability of the unsaturated zone must be determined using an appropriate field or laboratory test consistent with generally accepted engineering or scientific principles. A factor of safety (FS) of 2.0 is recommended to account for flow losses due to basin bottom siltation and clogging. For most sandy soils the fillable porosity (f) is approximately 0.2 to 0.3. The unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity (K vu) can be measured using the field testing procedures or laboratory methods recommended in section 1.4 of this Design Aid Volume. A design example for utilizing the above methodology is presented below in section 1.5 of this Design Aid Volume. DA-II.1.3.4 Accepted Methodologies for Lateral Saturated Flow If the ground water mound is at or above the basin bottom, the rate of water level decline in the basin is directly proportional to the rate of mound recession in the saturated aquifer. The Simplified Analytical Method, PONDFLOW, and Modified MODRET methodologies are generally acceptable for retention basin recovery analysis under lateral saturated flow conditions. These models are all similar in that the receiving aquifer system is idealized as a laterally infinite, single-layered, homogenous, isotropic water table aquifer of uniform thickness, with a horizontal water table prior to hydraulic loading. If these assumptions are not consistent with site conditions, a more appropriate model consistent with generally accepted engineering and scientific principles will be required. All of the accepted models require input values for the pond dimensions, retained stormwater runoff volume, and the following set of aquifer parameters: Thickness or elevation of base of mobilized (or effective) aquifer Weighted horizontal hydraulic conductivity of mobilized aquifer Fillable porosity of mobilized aquifer Ambient water table elevation which, for design purposes is usually the normal seasonal high water table DA-II.1-6

In addition, to these one-layered, uniform aquifer idealization models accepted above, more complicated fully three dimensional models with multiple layers (such as MODFLOW) may be used. In order to use such three dimensional models, however, much more field data is necessary to characterize the three dimensional nature of the aquifer. A brief description of each of the models recommended in Special Publication SJ93-SP10 is provided below. The reader is encouraged to consult the Special Publication for a more detailed description. MODRET/Modified MODRET MODRET is a methodology developed for the Southwest Florida Water Management. The saturated analysis module of MODRET is essentially a pre- and post-processor for the USGS threedimensional ground water flow model MODFLOW. The MODRET model also has the capability to calculate unsaturated vertical flow from retention basins using the Green and Ampt equation. Unsaturated flow takes place prior to the ground water mound intersecting the basin bottom. The input parameters in the MODRET pre-processor are use to create MODFLOW input files. After the MODFLOW program is executed, the MODRET post-processor extracts and prints the relevant information from the MODFLOW output files. MODRET allows the user to input time-varying recharge (such as a hydrograph from a storm event) and calculate saturated flow out of the basin during recharge (i.e., a storm event). During the study presented in Special Publication SJ93-SP10, it was discovered that the MODRET model was producing unstable MODFLOW solutions when modeling the recovery of some of the sites. This problem generally occurs when one or a combination of the following is true: The pond dimensions are relatively large (greater than 100 feet) The aquifer is relatively thin (less than 5 feet) The horizontal hydraulic conductivity is relatively low (less than 5 ft/day) Upon further review, the MODRET model was modified in the study to correct this instability problem by changing the head change criterion for convergence to 0.001 ft from 0.01 ft. The original MODRET model with this modification is therefore referred to as "Modified MODRET." PONDFLOW PONDFLOW is a retention recovery computer model that is similar to MODRET in that it is uses a finite difference numerical technique to approximate the time varying ground water profile adjacent to the basin. Also, like MODRET it can accommodate a time-varying recharge to the pond, account for seepage during the storm, and also calculates vertical unsaturated flow using Darcy's Equation. DA-II.1.3.5 Methodology for Analyzing Recovery by Lateral Saturated Flow by Hand The MODFLOW groundwater flow computer model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey can be used to generate a series of dimensionless curves to predict retention basin recovery under lateral saturated flow (Stage Two) conditions. The dimensionless parameters can be expressed as: F x = 2 W 4 K H D t (1-5) DA-II.1-7

F y = h c H T (1-6) where: F x = Dimensionless parameter representing physical and hydraulic characteristics of the retention basin and effective aquifer system (x-axis) F y = Dimensionless parameter representing percent of water level decline below a maximum level (y-axis) W = Average width of the retention basin, midway between basin bottom and water level at time t (ft) K H = Average horizontal hydraulic conductivity (ft/day) D = Average saturated thickness of the aquifer (ft) t = Cumulative time since saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow started (days) h c = Height of water in the basin above the initial ground water table at time t (ft) H T = Height of water in the basin above the initial ground water table at the start of saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow (ft) The average saturated thickness of the aquifer (D) can be expressed as: D = H + h c 2 (1-7) where: H = Initial saturated thickness of the aquifer (ft) The height of water in the basin above the initial groundwater table at the start of saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow (H T) is: H T h (1-8) b h 2 where: h 2 = Height of water in the basin above the basin bottom at the start of saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow (ft) Figure 1-3 contains an illustration of the design parameters for analysis of saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow conditions. The design parameters for a retention system utilizing both unsaturated vertical (Stage One) and saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow is represented in Figure 1-4. The equation for F x can be rearranged to solve for the time (t) to recover the remaining treatment volume under saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow: t = 2 W 4 K H D F x 2 (1-9) DA-II.1-8

Figure 1-3 Design Parameters for Groundwater Mounding Analysis for Stage Two (Lateral) Flow. DA-II.1-9

Figure 1-4 Design Parameters for Groundwater Mounding Analysis for Stage One and Stage Two Flow. DA-II.1-10

Andreyev and Wiseman (1989) developed four families of dimensionless curves for fillable porosity (f) = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4. Five individual curves, for length to width ratios of 1, 2, 4, 10, and 100 were developed for each family. The resulting dimensionless curves are presented on Figures 1-5 through 1-8. These curves can be used to calculate the recovery time given the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer, the recharge rate, and the physical configuration of the basin. An example design problem utilizing both unsaturated vertical (Stage One) and saturated lateral (Stage Two) flows to estimate the recovery time is given below in section 1.5 below. DA-II.1.4 Recommended Field and Laboratory Tests for Aquifer Characterization The following field and laboratory investigation and testing guidelines are recommended for aquifer characterization and are described in more detail in Special Publication SJ93-SP10. DA-II.1.4.1 Definition of Aquifer Thickness Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (American Society for Testing Material (ASTM D)-1586) or auger borings (ASTM D 1452) should be used to define the thickness of the mobilized aquifer (i.e., depth to "hardpan" or restrictive layer) especially where the ground water table is high. This type of boring provides a continuous measure of the relative density/consistency of the soil (as manifested by the SPT "N" values) which is important for detecting the top of cemented or very dense "hardpan" type layers. If carefully utilized, manual "bucket" auger borings can also be used to define the thickness of the aquifer. Power flight auger borings may also be used with caution since this method may result in some mixing of soil from a given level with soils from strata above, thus masking the true thickness of the aquifer. To avoid this problem, technical guidelines for continuous flight auger borings are included in Appendix C of the St. Johns River Water Management District Publication SJ93-SP10. Preferably, the SPT borings should be continuously sampled at least 2 feet into the top of the hydraulically restrictive layer. If a restrictive layer is not encountered, the boring should be extended to at least 10 feet below the bottom of the pond. As a minimum, the depth of the exploratory borings should extend to the base elevation of the aquifer assumed in analysis, unless nearby deeper borings or well logs are available. The number of borings required to characterize the receiving aquifer of a retention basin depends on the anticipated areal and vertical variability of the aquifer. The local experience of the registered professional also plays an important role in the selection of the number of borings. As a guide, it has been suggested the following empirical equation to estimate the number of exploratory borings required: B = 1 + 2 A + where: B = Number of borings required A = Average area of basin (acres) L = Length of basin (ft) W = Width of basin (ft) L 2 W (1-10) Ground surface elevations at the boring locations should be surveyed if there is significant relief in the locality of the borings. DA-II.1-11

Figure 1-5 Dimensionless Curves Relating Basin Design Parameters to Basin Water Level in a Rectangular Retention Basin Over an Unconfined Aquifer (f = 0.1). DA-II.1-12

Figure 1-6 Dimensionless Curves Relating Basin Design Parameters to Basin Water Level in a Rectangular Retention Basin Over an Unconfined Aquifer (f = 0.2). DA-II.1-13

Figure 1-7 Dimensionless Curves Relating Basin Design Parameters to Basin Water Level in a Rectangular Retention Basin Over an Unconfined Aquifer (f = 0.3). DA-II.1-14

Figure 1-8 Dimensionless Curves Relating Basin Design Parameters to Basin Water Level in a Rectangular Retention Basin Over an Unconfined Aquifer (f = 0.4). DA-II.1-15

DA-II.1.4.2 Estimated Normal Seasonal High Ground Water Table In estimating the normal seasonal high ground water table (SHGWT), the contemporaneous measurements of the water table are adjusted upward or downward taking into consideration numerous factors, including: antecedent rainfall, redoximorphic features (i.e., soil mottling), stratigraphy (including presence of hydraulically restrictive layers), vegetative indicators, effects of development, and hydrogeologic setting. The application of these adjustments requires considerable experience. The SHGWT shall be determined utilizing generally accepted geotechnical and soil science principles. The October 27, 1997 USDA NRCS Depth to Seasonal High Saturation and Seasonal Inundation memorandum provides such principles and methodologies for determining SHGWT. In general, the measurement of the depth to the ground water table is less accurate in SPT borings when drilling fluids are used to maintain an open borehole. Therefore, when SPT borings are drilled, it may be necessary to drill an auger boring adjacent to the SPT to obtain a more precise stabilized water table reading. In poorly drained soils, the auger boring should be left open long enough (at least 24 hours) for the water table to stabilize in the open hole. DA-II.1.4.3 Estimation of Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity of Aquifer The following hydraulic conductivity tests are recommended for retention systems: a) Laboratory hydraulic conductivity test on undisturbed sample (Figure 1-9). b) Uncased or fully screened auger hole using the equation on Figure 1-10. c) Cased hole with uncased or screened extension with the base of the extension at least one foot above the confining layer (Figure 1-11). d) Pump test or slug test, when accuracy is important and hydrostratigraphy is conductive to such a test method. Of the above methods, the most cost effective is the laboratory permeameter test on an undisturbed horizontal sample. However, it becomes difficult and expensive to obtain undisturbed hydraulic conductivity tube samples under the water table or at depths greater than 5 feet below ground surface. In such cases -- where the sample depth is over 5 feet below ground surface or below the water table -- it is more appropriate to use the in situ uncased or fully screened auger hole method (Figure 1-10) or the cased hole with uncased or screened extension (Figure 1-11). The main limitation of the laboratory permeameter test on a tube sample is that it represents the hydraulic conductivity at a point in the soil profile which may or may not be representative of the entire thickness of the mobilized aquifer. In most cases, the sample is retrieved at a depth of 2 to 3 feet below ground surface where the soil is most permeable, while the mobilized aquifer depth may be 5 to 6 feet. It is therefore important to use some judgment and experience in reviewing the soil profile to estimate the weighted hydraulic conductivity of the mobilized aquifer. It is not practical or economical to obtain and test permeability tubes at each point in the soil profile where there is a change in density, degree of cementation, or texture. Some judgment and experience must therefore DA-II.1-16

Figure 1-9 Laboratory Permeameter Test (PSI/Jammal & Associates Test Equipment). DA-II.1-17

Figure 1-10 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test: Uncased or Fully Screened Auger Hole, Constant Head. DA-II.1-18

Figure 1-11 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Test: Cased Hole with Uncased or Screened Extension. DA-II.1-19

be used to estimate representative hydraulic conductivities of the less permeable zones of the mobilized aquifer. In such an evaluation, registered professionals geotechnical engineers usually consider, among other factors, particle size distribution (particularly the percent of roots, sample orientation (i.e., horizontal or vertical), remolding, and compaction. Valuable insight into the variation of saturated hydraulic conductivity with depth in typical Florida soils can be gleaned from the comprehensive series of soil characterization reports published by the Soil Science Department at the University of Florida. As an additional guide, Figure 1-12 presents an approximate correlation between hydraulic conductivity of poorly graded fine sands in Florida versus the percent by dry weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The uncased or fully screened auger hole or cased hole with uncased or screened extension hydraulic conductivity test methods are suitable for use where the mobilized aquifer is stratified and there is a high water table. Ideally, these tests should be screened over the entire thickness of the mobilized aquifer to obtain a representative value of the weighted horizontal hydraulic conductivity. Tests performed below the water table avoid the need to saturate the soil prior to testing. If the mobilized aquifer is thick with substandard saturated and unsaturated zones, it is worthwhile to consider performing a laboratory permeameter test on an undisturbed sample from the upper unsaturated profile and also performing one the in situ tests to characterize the portion of the aquifer below the water table. Pump tests are appropriate for thick aquifers (greater than 10 feet) without intermediate hydraulically restrictive layers of hardpan, etc. Pump tests are the most expensive of the recommended hydraulic conductivity test methods. Therefore, it is recommended that pump tests be used in cases where the mobilized aquifer is relatively thick (greater than 10 feet), and where the environmental, performance, or size implications of the system justifies the extra costs of such a test. For design purposes, a hydraulic conductivity value of over 40 ft/day should not be used for finegrained sands and 60 ft/day for medium-grained sands. The selection of the number of hydraulic conductivity tests for a specific project depends on the local experience and judgment of the geotechnical engineer. Andreyev and Wiseman (1989) recommend one hydraulic conductivity test plus one more test for every four soil borings. DA-II.1.4.4 Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity The unsaturated vertical infiltration rate (K vu) can be measured using a double ring infiltrometer test. The field test should be conducted at the same elevation as the proposed basin bottom or lower, if possible. The surface at the test site should be compacted to simulate pond bottom conditions after construction. Field measurements of K vu at depths of more than 1 to 2 feet may not be possible, however, correlation of shallow strata test results with deeper strata may be possible. If field measurements of K vu are not possible, measure the saturated vertical hydraulic conductivity (K vs) by obtaining undisturbed tube sample in the vertical direction. Conduct laboratory permeameter test and then estimate K vu using an empirical correlation of K vu versus K vs (Andreyev and Wiseman 1989): K vu = 2 vs 3 K (1-11) DA-II.1-20

Figure 1-12 Correlation of Hydraulic Conductivity with Fraction by Weight Passing the U. S. No. 200 Sieve (Poorly Graded Fine Sands in Florida). DA-II.1-21

DA-II.1.4.5 Estimation of Fillable Porosity In Florida, the receiving aquifer system for retention basins predominantly comprises poorly graded (i.e., relatively uniform particle size) fine sands. In these materials, the water content decreases rather abruptly with the distance above the water table and they therefore have a well-defined capillary fringe. Unlike the hydraulic conductivity parameter, the fillable porosity value of the poorly graded fine sand aquifers in Florida are in a much narrower range (20 to 30 percent), and can therefore be estimated with much more reliability. For fine sand aquifers, it is therefore recommended that a fillable porosity in the range 20 to 30 percent be used in infiltration calculations. The higher values of fillable porosity will apply to the well- to excessively-drained, hydrologic group "A" fine sands, which are generally deep, contain less than 5 percent by weight passing the U.S. No. 200 (0.074 mm) sieve, and have a natural moisture content of less than 5 percent. No specific field or laboratory testing requirements is recommended to estimate this parameter. DA-II.1.5 Design Example for Retention Basin Recovery The following design example is for estimating retention basin recovery by hand utilizing the methodologies in sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.5 of this Design Aid Volume. Given: Commercial project discharging to Class III waters Drainage area = 3.75 acres Percent impervious = 40% Off-site drainage area = 0 acres Off-line treatment f = 0.30; K vs = 2 ft/day; K H = 10 ft/day; FS = 2.0 Basin bottom elevation = 20.0 feet Seasonal high groundwater table elevation = 17.0 feet Impervious layer elevation = 14.0 feet Rectangular retention basin with bottom dimensions of length = 100 ft and width = 50 ft The proposed retention basin has the following stage-storage relationship: Stage (ft) Storage (ft 3 ) 20.00 0 20.25 1278 20.50 2615 20.75 4011 21.00 5468 21.25 6988 Objective: Calculate the time to recover the treatment volume. Design Calculations Part I. Calculate the Treatment Volume and the Height of the Treatment Volume in the Basin DA-II.1-22

Step 1. Calculate the required treatment volume. For off-line retention, the rule requires retention of 0.5 inches of runoff. 0.5" volume = (3.75 ac) (0.5 in) (43560 ft 2 /ac) = 6807 ft 3 12 in/ft Total treatment volume = 6807 ft 3 Step 2. Calculate the height of the treatment volume in the basin. Using the stage/storage data, we see that 6807 ft 3 is between elevation 21.0 and 21.25 ft. Interpolating: Treatment vol. elev. = (21.25-21.0 ft) x (6807 ft 3-5468 ft 3 ) + 21.0 ft = 21.22 ft (6988 ft 3-5468 ft 3 ) Part II. Unsaturated Vertical Flow Analysis Step 3. Determine if saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow will occur. Treatment volume depth (h v) = 21.22-20.00 ft = 1.22 ft From Equation 1-4, the height of water to saturate the soil (h u) is: h u = f (h b) = 0.3 (3 ft) = 0.9 ft Saturated lateral flow will occur since h v > h u Step 4. Calculate the volume of water infiltrated in unsaturated vertical (Stage One) flow and the time to infiltrate this volume. The area of basin bottom (A b) is: A b = 50 ft x 100 ft = 5000 ft 2 Utilizing Equation 1-3, the volume infiltrated during Stage One (V u) is: V u = 5000 ft 2 (3 ft) 0.30) = 4500 ft 3 The unsaturated vertical hydraulic conductivity (K vu) is determined from Equation 1-11: K vu = 2 (2 ft/day) = 1.33 ft/day 3 The design infiltration rate (I d) is found from Equation 1-1: I d = 1.33 ft/day = 0.67 ft/day 2 From Equation 1-2, the time to saturate soil beneath the basin (t sat) is: DA-II.1-23

t sat = (3 ft)(0.30) = 1.34 days 0.67 ft/day Part III. Saturated Lateral Flow Analysis Step 5. Calculate the remaining treatment volume to be recovered under saturated lateral (Stage Two) flow conditions. Remaining volume to be infiltrated under saturated lateral flow = 6807-4500 = 2307 ft 3 Calculate the elevation of treatment volume at the start of saturated lateral flow by interpolating: Treatment volume elev. = (20.50-20.25 ft) x (2307 ft 3-1278 ft 3 ) + 20.25 ft = 20.44 ft at start of saturated (2615 ft 3-1278 ft 3 ) lateral flow Step 6. Calculate F y and F x When the treatment volume is recovered (time t = t Total) the water level is at the basin bottom. Hence, the height of the water level above the initial groundwater table (h c) will be equal to h b. h c = h b = 3 ft (at t = t Total) The height of water in the basin at the start of saturated lateral flow (h 2) is: From Equation 1-8: h 2 = 20.44-20.0 = 0.44 ft F y is determined from Equation 1-6: H T = h b + h 2 = 3.0 + 0.44 = 3.44 ft F y = 3 ft = 0.87 3.44 ft When the water level is at the basin bottom (time t = t Total) the basin length (L) = 100 ft and the basin width (W) = 50 ft. Determine F x. Basin length to width ratio (L/W) = 100 ft = 2 50 ft From Figure 1-7; F x = 4.0 (for f = 0.3, L/W = 2, and F y = 0.87) DA-II.1-24

Step 7. Calculate the time to recover the remaining treatment volume under saturated lateral flow. H = 17.0-14.0 = 3.0 ft The average saturated thickness (D) can be found from Equation 1-7: D = H + hc = 3.0 + 3.0 = 4.5 ft 2 2 The time (t) to recover the remaining treatment volume under lateral saturated flow conditions is determined from Equation 1-9: t = (50 ft) 2 = 0.87 days (4) (10 ft/day) (4.5 ft) (4.0) 2 Part IV. Calculate Total Recovery Time Step 8. Total time to recover the treatment volume (t Total) equals the time to recover during unsaturated vertical flow plus the time to recover under lateral saturated conditions. Total recovery time (t Total) = 1.34 days + 0.87 days = 2.21 days or 53 hours Therefore, the design meets the 72 hour recovery time criteria. DA-II.1-25

DA-II.2.0 DA-II.2.1 Methodology and Design Example for Wet Detention Systems Calculating Permanent Pool Volumes The residence time of a pond is defined as the average time required to renew the water volume (permanent pool volume) in the pond and can be expressed as: RT = PPV FR (2-1) where: RT = Residence time (days) PPV = Permanent Pool Volume (ac-ft) FR = Average Flow Rate (ac-ft/day) Solving Equation 2-1 for the permanent pool volume (PPV) gives: PPV = (RT) (FR) (2-2) The average flow rate (FR) during the wet season (June - September) can be expressed by: FR = DA C R WS (2-3) where: DA = Drainage area to pond (ac) C = Runoff coefficient (see Table 2-1 for a list of recommended values for C) R = Wet season rainfall depth (in) WS = Length of wet season (days) (June - September = 122 days) The depth of the wet season rainfall (R) for areas of the NWFWMD is shown in Figure 2-1. The rainfall depth at a particular location may be established by interpolating between the nearest isopluvial lines. Substituting Equation 2-3 into Equation 2-2 gives: PPV = DA C R RT WS CF (2-4) where: CF = Conversion factor = 12 in/ft DA-II.2.2 Sizing the Drawdown Structure The rule requires that no more than half the treatment volume should be discharged in the first 48 to 60 hours after the storm event. A popular means of meeting this requirement is to use an orifice or a weir. The following subsections show procedures for sizing an orifice and V-notch weir to meet the drawdown requirements. DA-II.2-1

Table 2-1 Selected Runoff Coefficients (C) for a Design Storm Return Period of Ten Years or Less 1 Sandy Soils Clay Soils Slope Land Use Min. Max. Min. Max. Flat (0-2%) Lawns 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.17 Rooftops and pavement 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Woodlands 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.20 Pasture, grass, and farmland 2 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.25 Rolling (2-7%) Lawns 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.22 Rooftops and pavements 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Woodlands 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.25 Pasture, grass, and farmland 2 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 Steep (>7%) Lawns 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.35 Rooftops and pavements 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Woodlands 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.30 Pasture, grass, and farmland 2 0.25 0.35 0.30 0.40 1 For 25- to 100-yr recurrence intervals, multiply coefficient by 1.1 and 1.25, respectively, and the product cannot exceed 1.0. 2 Depends on depth and degree of permeability of underlying strata. DA-II.2-2

Figure 2-1 Wet Season Normal Rainfall, inches DA-II.2-3

DA-II.2.2.1 Sizing an Orifice The orifice equation is given by: Q = C A 2 g h (2-5) where: Q = Rate of discharge (cfs) A = Orifice area (ft 2 ) G = Gravitational constant = (32.2 ft/sec 2 ) H = Depth of water above the flow line (center) of the orifice (ft) C = Orifice coefficient (usually assumed = 0.6) The average discharge rate (Q) required to drawdown half the treatment volume (TV) in a desired amount of time (t) is: Q = TV 2 t CF (2-6) where: TV = Treatment Volume (ft 3 ) t = Recovery time (hrs) CF = Conversion Factor = 3600 sec/hr The depth of water (h) should be set to the average depth above the flow line between the top of the treatment volume and the stage at which half the treatment volume has been released: h = ( h 1 + h 2) 2 (2-7) where: h 1 = h 2 = Depth of water between the top of the treatment volume and the flow line (ft) Depth of water between the stage when half the treatment volume has been released and the flow line of the orifice (ft) Equation 2-5 can be rearranged to solve for the area (A): A = Q C 2 g h (2-8) DA-II.2-4

The diameter (D) of an orifice is calculated by: D = 4 A (2-9) where: D = Diameter of the orifice (ft) DA-II.2.2.2 Sizing a V-notch Weir Discharge (Q) through a V-notch opening in a weir can be estimated by: Q = 2.5 tan 2.5 h (2-10) 2 where: Q = = h = Discharge (cfs) Angle of V-notch (degrees) Head on vertex of notch (ft) The average discharge rate (Q) required to draw down half the treatment volume (TV) in a desired amount of time (t) is: Q = TV 2 t CF (2-11) where: TV = Treatment Volume (ft 3 ) t = Recovery time (hrs) CF = Conversion Factor = 3600 sec/hr The depth of water (h) should be set to the average depth above the vertex of the notch between the top of the treatment volume and the stage at which half the treatment volume has been released: h = (h 1 + h 2 ) 2 (2-12) where: h 1 = h 2 = Depth of water between the top of the treatment volume and the vertex of the notch (ft) Depth of water between the stage when half the treatment volume has been released and the vertex of the notch (ft) Equation 2-10 can be rearranged to solve for the V-notch angle ( ): -1 Q = 2 tan (2-13) 2.5 2.5 h DA-II.2-5

Substituting Equation 2-11 into Equation 2-13 and simplifying gives: = 2 tan -1 TV 5 t CF h 2.5 (2-14) DA-II.2.3 Mean Depth of the Pond The mean depth (MD) of a pond can be calculated from: MD = PPV A P (2-15) where: MD = Mean depth of the pond (ft) A P = Area of pond measured at the control elevation (ft 2 ) DA-II.2.4 Design Example Given: Residential development in Crawfordville, Wakulla County Class III receiving waters Project area = 100 acres; Project runoff coefficient = 0.35 Project percent impervious (not including pond area) = 30% Off-site drainage area = 10 acres; Off-site percent impervious = 0% Off-site runoff coefficient = 0.2 Average on-site groundwater table elevation at the proposed lake = 20.0 ft Design tailwater elevation = 19.5 ft Pond area at elevation 20.0 ft = 5.0 acres No planted littoral zone proposed, 50% additional permanent pool required The proposed wet detention lake has the following stage-storage relationship: Stage (ft) Storage (ac-ft) 9.0 0.0 20.0 18.0 25.0 35.5 Design Calculations: Step 1. Calculate the required treatment volume. The agency requires a treatment volume of 1 inch of runoff. Treatment volume required = (110 ac.)(1 inch) = 9.17 ac-ft (one inch of runoff) 12 in/ft Treatment volume = 9.17 ac-ft Step 2. Set the elevation of the control structure. DA-II.2-6

Set the orifice invert at or above the seasonal high water table and design tailwater elevation. Therefore, set the orifice invert elevation at 20.0 ft. Set an overflow weir at the top of the treatment volume storage to discharge runoff volumes greater than the treatment volume. Utilizing the stage-area-storage relationship, interpolate between 20.0 and 25.0 ft. 9.17 ac ft Weir elev. (35.5ac ft) (18.0ac ft) 25ft 20ft 20ft 22.62ft Step 3. Calculate the minimum permanent pool volume that will provide the required residence time. The permanent pool must be sized to provide a residence time of at least 21 days (14 days plus 50% additional) during the wet season (June - September), to account for the design with no planted littoral zone. The length of the wet season (WS) = 122 days From Figure 2-1, the wet season rainfall depth (R) for Crawfordville = 30 inches The minimum residence time (RT) = 21 days The runoff coefficient (C) for the drainage area to the wet detention pond is: C Utilizing Equation 2-4: 100ac - 5.0ac 0.35 (5.0ac)(1.0) 10ac 0.2 Permanent pool volume 110ac 110ac 0.37 30in 21days 122days 12 in/ft 0.37 17.5ac ft The pond volume below elevation 20.0 feet is 18.0 ac-ft. Therefore, adequate storage is provided to satisfy the permanent pool criteria. Step 4. Size a circular orifice to recover one-half the treatment volume in 48 hours. Since the size of the orifice has yet to be determined, use the invert elevation of the orifice as an approximation of the flow line (center) of the orifice. After calculating the orifice size, adjust the flow line elevation and calculate the orifice size again. Stage at half From Equation 2-7: Treatment volume depth (h 1) = 22.62 ft - 20.00 ft = 2.62 ft the treatment volume (9.17ac ft) 0.5 35.5ac ft) (18.0ac ft h 2 21.31ft 20.00ft 1.31ft 25.0ft 20.0ft 20.0ft 21.31ft DA-II.2-7

h 2.62ft 1.31ft 2 1.97ft The average flow rate (Q) required to drawdown one-half the treatment volume is found from Equation 2-6: 2 9.17ac ft 43560ft /ac Q 2 1 48hrs Find the area (A) of the orifice utilizing Equation 2-8: 1 3600sec 1.16cfs Given: C = 0.6 G = 32.2 ft/sec 2 A = 0.6 3 1.16 ft /sec 2 = 0.172 ft 2 2 (32.2 ft/sec )1.97 ft From Equation 2-9, the orifice diameter (D) is: D = 4 2 (0.172 ft ) 3.1416 = 0.468 ft = 5.6 inches For a vertical orifice, adjust h 1, h 2, and the orifice diameter (D) to the flow line of the orifice. 0.468ft Flow line elevation 20.00ft 20.23ft 2 h 22.62ft 20.23ft 2.39 ft 1 h 21.31ft 20.23ft 1.08ft 2 2.39ft 1.08ft h 2 1.74ft A = 0.6 3 1.16 ft /sec 2 = 0.183 ft 2 2 (32.2 ft/sec )1.74 ft D = 4 2 (0.183 ft ) 3.1416 = 0.483 ft = 5.8 inches 0.483ft Flow line elev. 20.00 ft 20.24 ft 2 DA-II.2-8

20.24 ft vs 20.23 ft = 0.01 ft difference which is acceptable Step 5. Check the mean depth of the pond. The mean depth of the permanent pool must be between 2 and 8 feet. From Equation 2-15: mean depth = 17.5 ac-ft = 3.5 ft which is consistent with the mean depth criteria. 5.0 ac Additional Steps. In a typical design, the applicant would have to design the following: (a) (b) (c) Pond shape to provide at least 2:1 length to width ratio Alignment of inlets and outlets to promote mixing and maximize flow path Overflow weir to safely pass the design storm event(s) at pre-development peak discharge rates. DA-II.2-9

DA-II.3.0 DA-II.3.1 Methodology and Design Examples for Stormwater Reuse Systems Overview Water budgets are utilized to design stormwater reuse systems. A water budget is an accounting of water movement onto, within, and off of an area. The purpose of developing a water budget for stormwater reuse systems is to quantify the reduction in offsite discharge by reuse for a given period of time. Individual components of water supply, storage, use, and movement must be accounted for in the water budget. Calculation of these components requires knowledge of the watershed characteristics, reuse area (if irrigation is to be used), desired percentage of runoff to be reused, reuse volume, reuse rate, rainfall data, and evaporation data. Using the above parameters, researchers at the University of Central Florida simulated the long term behavior of reuse ponds over time for various locations in Florida. The results of the simulations are presented in Rate-Efficiency-Volume (REV) curves. The REV curves can be used to design stormwater reuse systems to meet the performance criteria described in section 12 of Applicant s Handbook, Volume II for NWFWMD. Reuse curves for selected regions are provided in section 3.5 of the Design Aids. Important assumptions that must be kept in mind when using the REV curves include: (a) (b) (c) (d) Net ground water movement into or out of the pond is assumed to be zero. The reuse rate is constant over time. The mean annual evaporation from the pond equals the mean annual rainfall on the pond. The results are long term averages based on historical rainfall records. The results will not give an indication of conditions during a wet or dry year. To design a reuse system which does not meet one of the above assumptions, the applicant can develop a site specific water budget analysis to meet the performance criteria described in section 12 of Applicant s Handbook, Volume II for NWFWMD. The following sections and example problems summarize the REV curve methodology for the design of stormwater reuse systems. DA-II.3.2 Equivalent Impervious Area When designing stormwater reuse systems, the runoff characteristics of the watershed must be determined. The overall runoff coefficient (C) for an area composed of different surfaces can be determined by weighting the runoff coefficients for the surfaces with respect the total areas they encompass: DA-II.3-1

C = C1 A 1 + C 2 A 2 +... + A 1 + A 2 +... + C N AN AN (3-1) where: C N = Runoff coefficient for surface N (see Table 24-1 for values of C) A N = Area of surface N This weighted runoff coefficient (C) is termed the effective runoff coefficient and is representative of the entire watershed. The equivalent impervious area (EIA) is equal to the product of the total area of the watershed (A) and the effective, or weighted, runoff coefficient (C) for the watershed: where: EIA = Equivalent impervious area (acres) C = Effective runoff coefficient for the watershed A = Area of watershed (acres) EIA = C A (3-2) The area of the EIA is defined as the area of a completely impervious watershed that would produce the same volume of runoff as the actual watershed. For example, a 20 acre watershed with an effective runoff coefficient (C) of 0.5 would have an EIA of 10 acres (20 ac x 0.5). If one inch of rain fell on this 10 acre impervious area, the runoff volume would be 10 ac-in (10 ac x 1 in). If the same amount of rain fell on the actual watershed the runoff volume would not change: 20 ac (1 in) (0.5) = 10 ac-in The EIA will be expressed in acres throughout this methodology. The use of the EIA serves to generalize the model so that it can be applied to a watershed of any size and runoff characteristics. The EIA for a watershed should include the area of the pond when using this methodology. DA-II.3.3 Reuse Volume The reuse volume (V) is the amount of runoff stored in the reuse pond between the top of the permanent pool and the invert of the overflow structure (see Figure 12-1, of Applicant s Handbook, Volume II, for NWFWMD). This volume is akin to the treatment volume in wet detention systems. The major difference between a reuse pond and a wet detention pond is the operation of this storage volume. For wet detention systems, the treatment volume is designed to be discharged to adjacent surface waters via an overflow structure. On the other hand, in a reuse pond the reuse volume (V) is reused and not discharged to adjacent surface waters. Reuse volumes are expressed in units of inches over the EIA. The values can be converted to more practical units using simple conversions (see the example problems in section 3.7 of the Design Aids). DA-II.3-2